Friday, December 08, 2006

Checking In with "Spoiler Steve"

During the campaign, write-in spoiler Steve Monks committed himself to doing all that he could to ensure that the three players targeted by Mike Nifong received due process. It’s been 32 days since the election. The table below charts all of Monks’ public activities in this regard since November 7, when his refusal to bow out of the race allowed Nifong to prevail with a plurality of the vote.

Took me a second too.... thought it was just another occasion of an image not showing up. Good one KC - and, are any of us surprised. Monks and his "committee" played with the Duke students, stalking them to local restaurants and bars. Telling them how Monks was the only candidate that cared, the only candidate that could do the right thing in this case.

Where are you now Mr. Monks?? Are you still out there plugging for justice for Reade, Collin and Dave?? I haven't 'heard' you mention there names since your 'campaign' ended....

Hey, KC, very cute. Now that you've been too cute by half, as you're so very fond of saying, why don't you actually take a look at the final vote count and Lewis "Ain't Gonna Serve, But Vote for Me Anyway" Cheek's own poll numbers—especially the 22% who wouldn't vote for him because he wouldn't serve (we all know how much you just love poll numbers, KC)—and do some real mathematical analysis? Then, why don't you tell us specifically how it is that your boy Cheek would have prevailed if Monks had pulled out of the race? Good luck, dude.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to make your job even more challenging, you might want to take a look at political reality while you're at it: you know, toss in just a few Republicans who voted for Monks and might not have voted for Cheek. Now you're going to need a lot more than good luck, aren't you?

Cheek lost because he was a real bad solution to a real big problem. Monks lost because you and a bunch of others—including Cheek's own campaign, who started their endless nonsense in this regard the moment Monks announced his candidacy—managed to convince people that a lie—write-in candidates can't win—was the truth. Nice work.

Cheek got exactly what he deserved here for the pure poppycock he tried to foist off on the people of Durham. Unfortunately, the indicted lacrosse players—who deserved the full and fair review of their case which Monks had promised and which Cheek, your ersatz "candidate," could not—did not. Again, nice work.

You guys want to blame the only candidate whose election ensured the result we were all seeking—a full and fair review of the lacrosse case—for the loss of a candidate who ensured absolutely nothing in this regard, then ignore the numbers and have right at it. But, in reality, you only have yourselves to blame—for believing your own bullshit and supporting a candidate who, in his refusal to serve, was doomed from the start. You guys are real geniuses.

Today's Los Angeles Daily Journal reports: A Superior Court judge delivered a scathing reprimand Thursday to a homicide prosecutor who discussed a case with a newspaper reporter while the jury was deliberating. Judge Teri Jackson ripped into Assistant District Attorney Diana Garcia during a 10-minute lecture from the bench on how her behavior could negatively affect the case and deny the defendants a fair trial. "In all my years, I have never seen anything like this," said Jackson, a former San Francisco homicide prosecutor. "The bottom line is that this conduct put the court and this case in great jeopardy." Garcia prosecuted Mark Miller, 38, and Ruben Bill, 33, for the 2002 murder of Nicholas Rendon III, 55, a gay man who lived on Potrero Hill. The jury deliberated four days and hung 6-6. During deliberations, Garcia discussed the prior convictions of Miller, which were not entered as evidence, as well as correspondence between Miller and the victim, which the judge refused to admit as evidence...."www.dailyjournal.com (it's a subscription based website)

Isn't that the section of San Francisco where OJ Simpson grew up? Too funny.

Too bad no judge in Durham has chosen to hold Nifong accountable for the horrendous damage his loose tongue has done.

*************************************************

Regarding a former poster's long diatribe about the election, I have to concur with some of his / her points.

Steve Monks was perhaps the worst candidate one could have in such a circumstance. Months ago I called him and told him that he didn't have a snowball's chance of being elected in a place like Durham. He, of course, disagreed.

He's from Texas and has only lived in the area for about four years. I really don't think he understood just how futile his candidacy was.

I was schooled in the arts.....heavily into music and drama......along with modeling and performing professionally in the past......so I am often accused of giving too much weight to aesthetics....however......

......IMO, Steve Monks was not an attractive candidate with very little personality or polish.

Ditto for the bland and self-possessed Lewis Cheek.

Both were at least as magnetic and interesting as old Mike Nifong-----who, on a good day, couldn't scratch his posterior with a handfull of fish hooks with regard to personality or magnetism.

And make no mistake.....even in a jack-off place like Durham, one needs some personality to get elected.

As everyone knows, Nifong was appointed initially, and his latest "victory" was courtesy of a specially seasoned brand of black racism: "Get whitey. Get elected."

It infuriates me that there was not one intelligent, decent, and justice-driven man or woman in that town who would run for the DA position--(and who would actually serve)--in order to bring the criminality of Mike Nifong to a halt.

This whole fiasco has been a comedy of errors and injustice................ruining lives.

I have every suspicion that Monks had a side deal with Nifungus and stayed in the race for some bizarre reason or hollow promise. It was clear that Monks would never be elected, yet he and Ross Perot can now claim "spoiler" title. How sadly disappointing for the fine citizens of Durham that want to regain respectibility to their community.

Monks effort was so poorly executed he didn't have a chance either as a write-in or a candidate with his name on the ballot.

Hell, most people didn't even know he was running until they started seeing campaign signs go up in mid-October (good planning). I'm a campaign novice but, if there is a 'next time' for Monks, I'd recommend signs that are a little more eye-catching and easier to read from a passing car.

Monks campaign was too little too late, just like his petition drive.

BTW, exactly what were his qualifications?? He runs 4 or 5 law "offices" in the area? No office phone numbers, only a cell, no office staff. No prosecutorial experience... A Governor appointee would no doubt have been more qualified than Mr. Monks.

And, do tell, if Mr. Monks was running because of Nifong's prosecutorial misconduct and/or ethical transgressions in the LAX case, why didn't he campaign against Nifong? His campaign was focused solely on the Recall Nifong effort... why??

BTW - the poll that you reference wasn't commissioned by Lewis Cheek. It was commissioned by the DSED due to the baiting and promises of none other than Mr. Monks -- who told them if they could show him Cheek could win he would withdraw. No matter which poll you look at, the N&O, the DSED or, even the poll Monks referred to during his press conference (you know the one done by someone who had never done a poll before, who wouldn't divulge who had commissioned the poll and who was the former head of the republican party in his county) Monks was never even in the running. Not with 2%, not with 5% and not with 11%.

He failed miserably on all counts. You can argue all day long that he wasn't the spoiler but that's what the public perceives - go out there and ask them. Read the papers....

KC if I were a betting man, I'd wager a small amount--maybe a seafood or steak diner--that you know the 6:06 poster. Perhaps, he is that disgruntled (and jealous) former colleague. Keep lining them up and knocking them down. Never stop calling those spades, spades.

I know what he’s not doing, taking his spoiler ‘Vote for Monk’ signs down in Durham. It’s been over a month and there still everywhere. I guess he’s to ashamed to show his face around town after he essentially helped Nifong win the election. He must be an only child.

1.deborah corell wrote several posts and letters to the editor for the abn effort but now that the abn candidates have crapped out, she is writing bad things about cheek and monks. what a hypocrite. the fact of the matter is that cheek, nifong and monks are no more lacking in charisma than most of the politicians around here. all of them are typical of the look and demeanor of southern white male middle class lawyers. the main difference was in their behavior patterns. monks was a cheap opportunist who tried to take advantage of the lax case to get elected da and help the politically weak republican party in durham. nifong is either a career prosecutor searching for justice or a race baiter usuing the case to be elected. cheeks was the one who violated all pretenses to southern gentlemanhood: he allowed people to put him on a ballot but was not sure he would run, waited a long time(6 weeks) to tell his followers he would not campaign and then had a series of meetings with monks and da candidates to try to manipulate the election further. he was entirely without honor and was the one who suffered the most fallout here in durham. that is why he was crying like a bitch on tv right before the election.

2.the fact of the matter is that monks surged in the polls and cheek was the one who lost votes compared with the N and o poll percentages. nifong's percentages stayed about the same.

3.regardless of monks and cheeks combined percentages, nifong won. nifong won. nifong won. nifong won. there. if you repeat it enough times, it may sink in. the duke 3, with their abn campaign, their pr firm, bill bennet, 60 minutes of lies, the lying bouncer and club manager that no one believed in durham, liestoppers, this website, gaynor, etc--LOST big time and nifong did it by winning 37 precincts and not all of them were black. he has white support as well as black.

Yep, I don't have to repeat "Nifong won" to know that its true. Durham elected a man who we all knew had no morals, no integrity and played the LAX case and race to get elected. This is all very sad don't ya think?

It is amazing.... how you believe anyone and everyone who supports the false accuser in this case and anyone who supports Collin, Reade and Dave are liers. I guess the ATM is lying too?

I find your take on the LAX case very interesting. To summarize: the LAX players are lying, the second dancer is lying, the bouncer is lying, the club manager is lying, and Ed Bradley is lying. Indeed, the only one who is telling the truth in all of this is the accuser. Oh, yes, and the reason why there is no DNA to support her story is because Duke Hospital is engaged in a conspiracy to hide the evidence. Did I get that right?

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review